alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8733-8734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3246]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec. [thinsp]225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board 
has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and 
permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of

[[Page 8734]]

Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the 
question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 
of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies 
may be obtained from the National Information Center website at 
www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than March 13, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Donna J. Ward, Assistant 
Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Spalding City Corporation, Omaha, Nebraska; to retain voting 
shares of Spalding City Insurance Agency, Spalding, Nebraska, and 
thereby continue to engage in general insurance activities in small 
towns, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(11)(iii)(A) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 21, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc.E7-3246 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          72,050
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          13,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    897,688
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           6,610
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             6,802
<LOANS>                                      1,551,587
<ALLOWANCE>                                     35,773
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,589,415
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,154,676
<SHORT-TERM>                                    24,933
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             51,676
<LONG-TERM>                                     40,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           727
<OTHER-SE>                                     317,403
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,589,415
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                149,924
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               31,514
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 6,087
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               187,525
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              86,641
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              89,305
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           98,220
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   10,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               4,919
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 51,889
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 61,997
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      61,997
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,628
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.75
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.33
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,307
<LOANS-PAST>                                    12,027
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  8,474
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                30,660
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    6,852
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,965
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               35,773
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            35,773
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1697

EDWARD F. HODGES, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
NORMAN HUDSON, Chief, South Hill Police Department; EARL HORNE, Mayor, Town of South Hill; BILL ELKINS, Attorney at Law; TOWN OF SOUTH HILL; MILLIE BRACEY, Member of the Town Council, individually and in their capacity as council members; JOHNNIE COOK, Member of thetown Council, individually and in their capacity as council member; WILLIAM DOYLE, Member of the Town Council, individually and in their capacity as council member; JIMMIE BUTTS, Member of the Town Council, individually and in their capacity as council member; WILLIAMGREGORY, Member of the Town Council, individually and in their capacity as council member; WOODROW KIDD, Member of the Town Council, individually and in their capacity as council member; JOHNNIE CROWDER, Member of the Town Council, individually and in their capacity as council member; LEROY SASSER, Member of theTown Council, individually and in their capacity as council member, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-01-74)
Submitted: September 20, 2001 Decided: September 26, 20012 Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward P. Hodges, Appellant Pro Se. Barrett Erskine Pope, Amy Jacqueline Inge, DURRETTE, IRVIN & BRADSHAW, P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Edward F. Hodges appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint anddenying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hodges v. Hudson , No. CA-01-74 (E.D. Va. Apr . 4 & 20, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 398 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 398

 To prevent the use of additional Internal Revenue Service funds from 
being used for audits of taxpayers with taxable incomes below $400,000 
 in order to protect low- and middle-income earning American taxpayers 
   from an onslaught of audits from an army of new Internal Revenue 
 Service auditors funded by an unprecedented, nearly $80,000,000,000, 
                         infusion of new funds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 14, 2023

Mr. Crapo (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Thune, Mr. Scott 
of South Carolina, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Young, Mr. Barrasso, 
 Mrs. Blackburn, and Mr. Johnson) introduced the following bill; which 
        was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prevent the use of additional Internal Revenue Service funds from 
being used for audits of taxpayers with taxable incomes below $400,000 
 in order to protect low- and middle-income earning American taxpayers 
   from an onslaught of audits from an army of new Internal Revenue 
 Service auditors funded by an unprecedented, nearly $80,000,000,000, 
                         infusion of new funds.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITATIONS RELATED TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.

    (a) In General.--Section 10301 of Public Law 117-169 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``In General.--'' and inserting ``(a) In 
        General.--'', and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Limitations Related to the Internal Revenue Service.--None of 
the funds appropriated under subsection (a)(1) may be used to audit 
taxpayers with taxable incomes below $400,000.''.
                                 <all>
```
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1547 

To nullify the effect of the recent Executive order that establishes an ‘‘election 

integrity’’ commission, which will be used and is designed to support 

policies that will suppress the vote in minority and poor communities 

across the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 12, 2017 

Mr. BOOKER (for himself, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. HARRIS, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, 

Ms. HIRONO, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. 

REED, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. COONS, Mr. BROWN, Mr. CARPER, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. CASEY, Ms. HASSAN, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. MURPHY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. 

WYDEN, Mr. UDALL, Ms. WARREN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. 

SCHUMER, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. SCHATZ, and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

A BILL 

To nullify the effect of the recent Executive order that establishes an ‘‘election integrity’’ commission, which will be 

used and is designed to support policies that will suppress the vote in minority and poor communities across 

the United States. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1547 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Anti-Voter Suppres3 sion Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. NULLIFICATION. 

5 Executive Order 13799 (82 Fed. Reg. 22389; relat6 ing to ‘‘Establishment of Presidential Advisory Commis7 sion on Election Integrity’’) shall have no force or effect. 

8 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON FUNDS. 

9 None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 

10 available under an Act of Congress enacted before, on, or 

11 after the date of enactment of this Act may be made avail12 able for the commission established under the Executive 

13 order described in section 2 or for any similar commission 

14 established for the purpose of studying voter fraud. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Case 2:01-cv-00731-LP Document 70 Filed 03/26/09 Page 1 of 13
Case 2:01-cv-00731-LP Document 70 Filed 03/26/09 Page 2 of 13
Case 2:01-cv-00731-LP Document 70 Filed 03/26/09 Page 3 of 13
Case 2:01-cv-00731-LP Document 70 Filed 03/26/09 Page 4 of 13
Case 2:01-cv-00731-LP Document 70 Filed 03/26/09 Page 5 of 13
Case 2:01-cv-00731-LP Document 70 Filed 03/26/09 Page 6 of 13
Case 2:01-cv-00731-LP Document 70 Filed 03/26/09 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:01-cv-00731-LP Document 70 Filed 03/26/09 Page 8 of 13
Case 2:01-cv-00731-LP Document 70 Filed 03/26/09 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:01-cv-00731-LP Document 70 Filed 03/26/09 Page 10 of 13
Case 2:01-cv-00731-LP Document 70 Filed 03/26/09 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:01-cv-00731-LP Document 70 Filed 03/26/09 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:01-cv-00731-LP Document 70 Filed 03/26/09 Page 13 of 13
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 36 (Friday, February 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3096]



[[Page 8161]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 22, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Patrick M. Wilder, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. C-B-G, Inc., West Liberty, Iowa; to acquire additional voting 
shares of Washington Bancorp, Washington, Iowa, for a total exceeding 
25 percent, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Federation 
Bank, Washington, Iowa.
    2. Community State Bank Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust, 
Union Grove, Wisconsin; to increase its ownership of Union 
Bancorporation, Inc., Union Grove, Wisconsin, to 35.52 percent of the 
voting shares, and thereby increase its indirect ownership of Community 
State Bank, Union Grove, Wisconsin.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 20, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-3096 Filed 2-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### Virgil O. HOOKER; Dora E. Hooker; David O. Hooker; Gloria J. Hooker, Appellants, v. Bentley E. STORY, Appellee.

No. 98-2278.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 6, 1998.

Decided Aug. 10, 1999.

Before MCMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Virgil 0. Hooker, Dora E. Hooker, David 0. Hooker, and Gloria J. Hooker appeal from the final judgment entered in the District Court1 for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Arkansas Chancery Judge Bentley E. Story, and from orders denying various postjudgment motions. This court has already affirmed the dismissal of this action, *see Hooker v. Story,*No. 98-1658, 141 F.3d 1168 (table), 1998 WL 166496 (8th Cir. Apr.7, 1998) (unpublished per curiam), and the filing of the earlier notice of appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction over subsequently filed pleadings, *see Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.,*459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982) (per curiam). Accordingly, the district court properly denied relief, and we affirm.

A true copy.

1

. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Exhibit 10(iii) (c)


              DESCRIPTION OF BONUS ARRANGEMENT
                  FOR SECTOR PRESIDENTS OF
                   INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY


     There is no formal document setting forth this
arrangement.  However, the Compensation and Nominating
Committee of the Board of Directors will approve bonus
arrangements for the Sector Presidents for 2001 which will be
dependent upon the performance of the Sector Presidents'
respective sectors, with a portion of their bonuses based on the
total company's performance relative to predetermined earnings
per share, cash flow, and return on invested capital goals.
Discretionary bonuses may be paid in the event that goals are
not met.
1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 1

BARRY MORRIS, SBN #48368 

Attorney at Law 

1220 Oakland Blvd. #200 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

(925) 934-1100 

fax: (925) 934-1122 

barrymorris@mac.com

Attorney for Defendant 

BENITO JULIAN LUNA 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

BENITO JULIAN LUNA, No. CIV S-04-0627 FCD GGH 

 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

 

SCOTT KERNAN, 

 

Respondent./ 

Stipulation, Declaration, and Order 

 BARRY MORRIS, attorney for petitioner BENITO LUNA, and 

JAMIE A. SCHEIDEGGER, attorney for Respondent SCOTT KERNAN 

stipulate to extend the time to file objections to the Findings and 

Recommendations of the Magistrate from May 17, 2012 until June 

18, 2012. This stipulation is based upon the Declaration of Barry 

Morris attached hereto. 

Dated: May 9, 2012 

 ____/s/____________ 

BARRY MORRIS 

Attorney for Petitioner 

Case 2:04-cv-00627-MCE-GGH Document 46 Filed 05/10/12 Page 1 of 4
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 2

BENITO LUNA 

Case 2:04-cv-00627-MCE-GGH Document 46 Filed 05/10/12 Page 2 of 4
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 3

Declaration of Barry Morris 

 

 I, BARRY MORRIS, do hereby declare under penalty of perjury 

that: 

 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in all the courts of the 

State of California, the Federal District Court for the Northern, 

Central, and Eastern Districts of California, the Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. I represent 

the petitioner in the above-entitled case. 

 2. I am going to be out of the country from May 10, 2012 

until May 15, 2012 to attend the wedding of a very close friend in 

Mexico. The issue involved in this case is complicated and I will need 

additional time to prepare and file objections to the Findings and 

Recommendations of the Magistrate. 

 3. I spoke to Ms. Scheidegger, counsel for respondent, and 

she has authorized me to represent that he has no opposition to this 

request and so stipulates. 

Dated: May 9, 2012 

Walnut Creek, CA 

____/s/_____________ 

BARRY MORRIS 

Attorney for Petitioner 

BENITO LUNA 

Order 

Case 2:04-cv-00627-MCE-GGH Document 46 Filed 05/10/12 Page 3 of 4
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 4

 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, and the parties having 

so stipulated, the time to file objections to the Findings and 

Recommendations of the Magistrate is extended from May 17, 2012 

until June 18, 2012. 

Dated: May 9, 2012 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-00627-MCE-GGH Document 46 Filed 05/10/12 Page 4 of 4
Before the Third Division

January 16, 1950

No. 53944.

#### The Josebra Company *v.*United States,

protest 115893-K/74718 (San Francisco).

Ekwall, Judge:

This case is before us on a motion to amend the pleadings.

The original protest is in the following language:

> *%*ijs * * ***‡

> The so-called internal revenue tax should not be based upon the number of wine gallons of imported merchandise, when imported under proof, but should be based upon the distilled spirit content of this merchandise at the appropriate rate per proof gallon of distilled spirit contained in it. Sec. 528 Tariff Act of 1930 as amended; 26 U. S. C. A. Sec. 1150 (c). Internal Revenue Code Sec. 2800 (c).

> It is further claimed that the so-called internal revenue tax should be assessed only upon the quantity of proof spirits contained and not on the number of wine gallons by virtue of Reciprocal Trade Agreements.

> (See Belgian Trade Agreement, T. D. 47600;

> Haiti Trade Agreement, T. D. 47667;

> Netherlands Trade Agreement, T. D. 48075;

> Canadian Trade Agreement, T. D. 48033; T. D. 49752;

> French Trade Agreement, T. D. 48316;

> United Kingdom Trade Agreement, T. D. 49753.)

In the alternative, it is further claimed that the rate should be $2.00 rather than $9.00 per proof or wine gallon. (See Trade Agreements supra.)

The protest also contains printed claims under paragraphs 1558 and 1559 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

By amendment to the above, plaintiff seeks to add the following claim:

> Under paragraph 813, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the act of June 8, 1948, Public Law 612, duty should be assessed upon the same quantity of wines, liquors, cordials or distilled spirits as that which was subjected to final assessment of internal-revenue taxes.

The motion to amend is opposed by Government counsel on the following grounds: (1) That the amendment sought is in fact against the collector’s reliqui-dation pursuant to the judgment of this court covering the same entry (Abstract 51947); (2) that it seeks relief beyond the scope of this court’s final judgment in a prior protest claiming allowance for loss upon the same entry and therefore is untenable for the reason that the question of dutiable quantities in that entry is *345no longer subject to protest, that issue having been disposed of by final decision of this court in said Abstract 51947, and the collector’s reliquidation pursuant thereto giving no new right of protest except on the question of whether he properly complied with the court’s mandate; and (3) that plaintiff is estopped to make the claim set forth in the motion to amend by reason of expressed waivers and limitations set forth in the written stipulation previously filed in protest 115892-K, decided in said Abstract 51947.

For the reasons set forth in our decision on an identical motion filed in connection with protest 117513-K, decided January 11, 1950 (Abstract 53914) in which the situation is on all fours with that here presented, the motion is granted.
# IRC Handouts 12 04 18

&"Arial,Bold"&12U.S. Standard General LedgerSummary of Changes	

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"DRAFT &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handouts 12 04 18

# Additional Information

&"Arial,Bold"&12U.S. Standard General LedgerSummary of Changes	

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold" DRAFT &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handouts 12 04 18